Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c36.67

v2.c36.67

The next argument put forward by the Th. is whether the statement "puggala perceives" is the same as the statement, "that which perceives is puggala"¹ i.e. whether the two statements are identical as citta is with mano or different as rūpa is from vedanā. Buddhaghosa interprets the position of the opponents thus: the Sam. hold that puggala perceives but not everything that perceives is puggala, e.g., rūpa, vedanā, etc. are not puggala but that puggala perceives and that which perceives referred only to the percipient (puggala), and not to rūpādi.² The opponents, however, rely on the statement "atthi puggalo attahitāya paṭipanno ti" which, again is counteracted by the Th. by saying that the Sam. should equally rely on the statement "suññato lokam avekkhassu, etc." and admit that there is no puggala.